The SPUSA

I have seen DNZ speak of this organization several times, but I believe that a more in-depth discussion should occur on the subject. What are the virtues of this organizations, where does it's potential lay?

The first thing this organization needs, beyond dispute, is a policy of working class voting membership. However, the main problem I see with this organization is that it is reformist. How could such an organization be repurposed to revolutionary ends, how would it be any different from Entryism? The main virtue I see in this organization is it's programmatic clarity and well-elucidated minimum-programme, but it will need more than a minimum programme in the future. It is also devoid of the typical left sectarianism is regards to long dead historical personages..

Overall future outlook: Bleak

"Beyond dispute," indeed, comrade.

The program is indeed sufficient (well, maybe not, some more radical reforms really need to be put forward), but speaking of the reformism problem, there really needs to be tighter control over the working/"central" organs of the organization, but more importantly, more "voluntarism" on the part of the radicals. Often you see more radical stuff being passed, but it's the worms who step up to the plate to do the dirty work, and in the end, the radical implementation isn't as effective.

Strategy needs to be discussed more, too, because this is tied right into the reformism problem.

So essentially, you see them as left-reformists who have the potential to assert themselves as a revolutionary organization? They are marginal enough at this moment that such a turn may be possible. If they were more popular, their status as reformists would probably be more cemented.

Yeah, I wonder, now that comrade Chegitz is out of the organization.

I hear a lot of talk that the leadership of the party has now taken a militant anti-radical stance. I can't imagine that this is anything other than a reflection of tightening bourgeois dominance over the party. There are several other users on this board which can confirm this, such as Thriller.

I wonder how this came about? Did so many radicals abstain from party activism? This is supposed to be a more radical organization than Occupy.

No, the way I heard it is that there was a radical wing of the party which thought of semi-formally constituting itself as a faction within the party, and then the leadership clamped down, kicked them out, and now militantly enforces reformism within the party's ranks.

If you're referring to cmoney's group, that's not the one, though. IIRC, the Direct Action Tendency folks organized on the basis of not needing to belong to the party in order to belong to the DAT organization.

Maybe you had more recent developments in mind?

[Another party I looked at was the Peace and Freedom Party, but it needs to go federal and dump the Californian provincialism.]

No I wasn't, I forget the specifics but Cmoney didn't have anything to do with it.

The first thing this organization needs, beyond dispute, is a policy of working class voting membership.

What does this mean? What indications do you have that the makeup of the SPUSA is something other than working class? What is the problem you are trying to solve here?

However, the main problem I see with this organization is that it is reformist.

In what respect? There is no doubt that there are reformists in the SPUSA, but that, in my experience, varies greatly from local to local and individual to individual.

Comradely,

-SoR

PS: For the record, I am an ex-SPUSA member who is considering rejoining. I was one of the "leaders" of the Direct Action Tendency mentioned earlier in this thread.

What does this mean? What indications do you have that the makeup of the SPUSA is something other than working class? What is the problem you are trying to solve here?

The problem that is trying to be solved is that of alien class interests. If the leadership of the party is comprised of a class other than the working class, then the party's policies will reflect this class, not the working class. As far as I'm aware, the SPUSA does not have a policy that requires members to be of the working class.

In what respect? There is no doubt that there are reformists in the SPUSA, but that, in my experience, varies greatly from local to local and individual to individual.

Comradely,

-SoR

PS: For the record, I am an ex-SPUSA member who is considering rejoining. I was one of the "leaders" of the Direct Action Tendency mentioned earlier in this thread.

Well if you look at the party programme, no where is revolution mentioned once, neither explicitly nor implied. No where is the limits of electoral politics addressed.

I have no doubt that there are excellent people in the rank and file of the SPUSA. My complaints are directed towards the party as a cohesive unit, not its membership.

The problem that is trying to be solved is that of alien class interests. If the leadership of the party is comprised of a class other than the working class, then the party's policies will reflect this class, not the working class. As far as I'm aware, the SPUSA does not have a policy that requires members to be of the working class.

I am sympathetic to the intent of your argument here, but I think the logic behind it is somewhat problematic. The working class regularly does things against its own class interests. That's the power of the capitalist hegemony that exists. In the context of the United States specifically, the most pernicious example of this is the system of white privilege that regularly causes white workers to align themselves with the ruling class instead of their class (e.g. the Tea Party).

Also, remember that we are on the outside looking in, so for all we know all the social democratic leadership can be working class folks.

Well if you look at the party programme, no where is revolution mentioned once, neither explicitly nor implied. No where is the limits of electoral politics addressed.

That doesn't seem to be true. Their principles page mentions revolution five times. Their platform mentions it twice.

I agree about the limit of electoral politics. That doesn't seem to be mentioned is and it's likely due to social democratic tendencies which exist in the party.

As much as I've considered rejoining, I am unsure if it's worth it. Recent history has shown that those who push for a revolutionary perspective in the party get pushed out one way or another.

At the same time, a group of revolutionary cadre in the party can serve as a core that can, under the right conditions, change the character of the party. Say, for example, a much large Occupy type movement where this hypothetical core plays a large role bring more revolutionary minded people into the party can rapidly sweep away the reformist elements.

The key here, in my view, is in deciding the likelihood of such an event and whether it makes more strategic sense than starting a new formation.

Comradely,

-SoR